Interesting results from CERN's LHC

[The Brain]

A good thing Einstein didn't get the relativity Nobel.

[Viking]

All of physics since 1905 will need to be rethought if light speed is not as we understand it.

Why is that?

That's when Einstein had the clever idea that there was a speed limit and that limit was light speed.

[crazy canuck]

All of physics since 1905 will need to be rethought if light speed is not as we understand it.

Why is that?

That's when Einstein had the clever idea that there was a speed limit and that limit was light speed.

I undertand that but why does the fact that some particles travel faster change everything we have known about physics since 1905?

[Razgovory]

It means we have to remeasure all the stars to find out how far away they are all over again.

That'll take a really long measuring tape.

The way we judge how far away stars are and how big they are is based on relativity.  How fast light travels, and how much it bends around really big objects.

[Viking]

All of physics since 1905 will need to be rethought if light speed is not as we understand it.

Why is that?

That's when Einstein had the clever idea that there was a speed limit and that limit was light speed.

I undertand that but why does the fact that some particles travel faster change everything we have known about physics since 1905?

Because all of the explanations we have about how things smaller than protons behave begin with the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and the universal speed limit. It would be like trying to explain the movement of the plants without having a theory of gravity.

[The Brain]

All of physics since 1905 will need to be rethought if light speed is not as we understand it.

Why is that?

That's when Einstein had the clever idea that there was a speed limit and that limit was light speed.

I undertand that but why does the fact that some particles travel faster change everything we have known about physics since 1905?

Because all of the explanations we have about how things smaller than protons behave begin with the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and the universal speed limit. It would be like trying to explain the movement of the plants without having a theory of gravity.

Plants are stationary.

[Warspite]

It would be like trying to explain the movement of the plants without having a theory of gravity.

How did we get onto gardening?

[HVC]

It would be like trying to explain the movement of the plants without having a theory of gravity.

How did we get onto gardening?

One step away from steaks soon.

[Viking]

meh....

physics since 1905 rely just as much for meaning as the word "planets" relies on meaning on the letter "e"

I think that analogy works just as well...

[Razgovory]

On the other hand it might just be a problem with equipment.  I imagine that even if the results bear out relativity still is party true.  We know our knowledge of the universe is flawed, as little thingies and big thingies don't work together very well in our current theories.  Not to mention the fact that the universe acts like it has more mass then it does.

[Drakken]

That is why they remain cautious, as this definitely needs to be replicated.

[PDH]

I blame the Italians for this 

[Neil]

I think you're overstating things, Viking.  Even if this data turns out to be accurate under certain circumstances, the model would still hold up for the majority of phenomena (or so it would appear, based on the apparent strength under experiment of c).  It would be a lot like the way that Newton's gravitation still holds up rather well for some work, while in other areas general and special relativity and quantum mechanics have overtaken it.

[Viking]

I think you're overstating things, Viking.  Even if this data turns out to be accurate under certain circumstances, the model would still hold up for the majority of phenomena (or so it would appear, based on the apparent strength under experiment of c).  It would be a lot like the way that Newton's gravitation still holds up rather well for some work, while in other areas general and special relativity and quantum mechanics have overtaken it.

Well, yes, it could still work. But, in a sense, it would be like the situation between Copernicus and Kepler, where Copernicus was right and the Earth orbited the Sun, but the Ptolemaic system was better at describing the course of the planets. Relativity would still work as a tool, but it would not be correct description of the cosmos.

[Neil]

I think you're overstating things, Viking.  Even if this data turns out to be accurate under certain circumstances, the model would still hold up for the majority of phenomena (or so it would appear, based on the apparent strength under experiment of c).  It would be a lot like the way that Newton's gravitation still holds up rather well for some work, while in other areas general and special relativity and quantum mechanics have overtaken it.

Well, yes, it could still work. But, in a sense, it would be like the situation between Copernicus and Kepler, where Copernicus was right and the Earth orbited the Sun, but the Ptolemaic system was better at describing the course of the planets. Relativity would still work as a tool, but it would not be correct description of the cosmos.

All we really have are models and tools, and if they describe phenomena, then they are correct.  It's not as if relativity really works on quantum scales anyways, so I'm not sure that it's even really affected by this discovery.  That's the whole reason that we invented quantum mechanics in the first place.

Still, I'm not going to panic until some other teams start spotting superluminals.